In the H.G Wells novel and subsequent film, "The Invisible Man," the main character takes a dangerous drug and slowly disappears.

That is a metaphor for what is happening to Israel as it plans its latest unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, which it once "occupied" for security purposes. Israel is slowly disappearing, and the twin drugs of appeasement and self-delusion are responsible.

The "disengagement" later this month (which is actually a retreat and is seen that way by Israel's enemies) will not be the end, anymore than previous retreats, concessions, "good will" gestures and written documents have produced security or peace in the region.

Only after Israel is destroyed will the West realize what it did and failed to do, but it will find convenient and comforting explanations to absolve itself from any blame. Jews, you see, are always responsible not only for the world's problems, but for bringing destruction upon themselves by virtue of their being Jews.

Some Israelis are placing faith in a formal "letter of assurance" that President Bush addressed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004, in which the president assured Sharon that the United States would back Israel's claim for defensible borders, which Israelis take to mean the West Bank. The Palestinian and Arab sides have not agreed to any borders.

Israel trusts the word of the president, even as the State Department continues its pro-Arab ways and pressures Israel into real concessions while accepting as gospel empty promises from the Palestinian side, a side that has lived up to only one pledge: to eradicate the Jewish state.

Does anyone doubt that the moment (or even before the moment) the last Jewish "settler" is dislodged from Gaza and the last thriving business closed, that Hamas and its legion of demons will rush into Gaza, expand their terror operation and begin close-up attacks on Israel?

Who will stop them? It won't be the Europeans, or the Palestinians, or any Arab state that helps subsidize them. When the next formal war is launched against Israel, will the United States send troops and planes? With so little land left to defend, it is likely such a war will be over soon after it starts with Israeli cities reduced to rubble and casualties running to perhaps tens of thousands, or more.

No responsible business owner would give something to his customers without receiving something in return, or he would not remain in business for long. Why should Israel be required to do all the giving and none of the receiving?

Have we forgotten what produced the Israeli "occupation" of the Gaza Strip? In May, 1967, the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria gathered on Israel's borders in another attempt to eradicate Israel. These armies enjoyed backing from several other Arab countries, much as Hitler's "final solution" enjoyed similar support from some of the same Arab states. Israel's pre-emptive strike allowed it to gain control of Gaza and the West Bank.

Has anything changed in the Palestinian and Arab world? Has the rhetoric in mosques, schools and media cooled toward Israel or the objective of eliminating it? It has not. If anything, the rhetoric has become even more volatile. The Israelis are held in such contempt that they must dig up their dead from cemeteries in Gush Katif, including six graves of area residents murdered by terrorists, to avoid the desecration they've experienced in the past. Not a single Jew, living or dead, will be allowed to remain.

Based on past performance, once Israel's retreat is finished, the Palestinian-Arab side may digest its latest prey like a giant boa constrictor swallowing a large mouse. But after swallowing, it will want more. Look for another intifada and then look for the State Department and the rest of the administration to again pressure Israel to "do more."

The formula is wrong. Just as the character in "The Invisible Man" was unable to find an antidote and restore what he had lost, Israel's slow disappearance from the region cannot now be reversed. Assurances, agreements, promises and documents will not be able to bring her back.

The West, having failed 60 years ago to save millions of Jews from the murderous ways of the Third Reich, will have new blood on its hands which history will not, and should not, allow it ever to wipe clean.

Falls City Beer

08-06-2005, 03:08 PM

:rolleyes:

"We can no longer imitate our oppressors by oppressing others." :cry:

PickOff

08-06-2005, 03:17 PM

It is hard to see a resolution to this conflict. But I can't see a solution without Israel withdrawing settlements. Living standards must be improved for the Palestinian people for there to be any hope of curtailing the power of Hamas and other like organizations. Withdrawing settlements is the first step in that process. I hope that the result furthers the elected Palestine leaders and not those expousing violence. For I believe they are no longer one and the same. I wonder what this writer sees as the proper way to proceed towards peace.

cincinnati chili

08-06-2005, 03:45 PM

http://jewishworldreview.com/0805/thomas080405.php3

Israel trusts the word of the president, even as the State Department continues its pro-Arab ways

Yeah, whatever. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are just Mr. and Mrs. pro-Arab.

I see the point of Thomas and other pro-Isreal pundits who say that it looks really bad to make concessions to Palestinians in light of the events of 1967.

Nevertheless, most militant Palestinian youths weren't even born when this happened. All they know are poverty and death of their loved ones. IMO, it's time for Isrealis to leave these miserable pieces of real estate.

Ravenlord

08-06-2005, 04:45 PM

wonder how different things would be in the Middle East if Turkey and (then) Persia had allowed for parts of their land to be turned into the nation of Palestine?

and whenever Palestinian statehood is brought up, i can't help but wonder, why does no one care about the Kerds, whom haven't had a homeland since being driven out of the Steppes of Russia?

ochre

08-06-2005, 05:47 PM

wonder how different things would be in the Middle East if Turkey and (then) Persia had allowed for parts of their land to be turned into the nation of Palestine?

and whenever Palestinian statehood is brought up, i can't help but wonder, why does no one care about the Kerds, whom haven't had a homeland since being driven out of the Steppes of Russia?
Alternative locations were offered and rejected by those that chose palestine from what I have read.

Unlike the palestinians, the Kurds are not a semitic people. There plight is compounded by the fact that they did not (from what I have seen) have a strong advocate within the allied forces of WWI. The Arabs had Lawrence, a delegate of the British government sent to the middle east to attempt to foster rebellion within the Bedouins against their Ottoman rulers. The Jewish People had Lord Balfour (another agent of the British government) who promised Palestine to the Zionists. A Kurd nation was established by the treaty of Sevres following WWI, but the Turks never really bought into that concept and within a few years (along with the kingdom of Iraq, which also overlapped Kuristan's borders) had largely wiped that concept out.

ochre

08-06-2005, 05:51 PM

Sorry Raven, I misread. I see no real reason to displace Palestinians to another location to allow a displaced people to move in. I thought you had written:

"wonder how different things would be in the Middle East if Turkey and (then) Persia had allowed for parts of their land to be turned into the nation of Israel"

and that is what I was responding to.

GAC

08-07-2005, 09:19 AM

"Whatever the surface appearances, therefore, the immediate horizon seems to hold greater promise of conflict than of diplomacy."

Are we seeing the fulfillment of Ezekiel, chapters 38-39? Most of the nations about which Ezekiel wrote are lining up, and a regional conflict such as seems to be forthcoming could lead to a peace enforced by the world community that lulls Israel into the false sense of security described by Ezekiel.

But by far the hottest boiling point issue within the scope of the Israeli-Arab Conflict is the subject of the conflicting national claims of two peoples, the Israelis and Palestinians, over to whom Jerusalem belongs. So Israel will concede land in the hope of gaining peace.

The Jews say Jerusalem belongs to them. The Muslims say it belongs to them. The UN says it belongs to the world. And the Vatican says it belongs to the Church.

My point? - granting land/concessions to the Palestinians, which so many say will bring peace/resolution to this situation, will not at all. ;)

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resigned in protest on Sunday as the cabinet approved the first phase of evacuations from settlements in the occupied Gaza Strip.

The resignation of Netanyahu, Sharon's main rival in the right-wing Likud party, sent local markets reeling and showed the depth of division in the cabinet over the plan for "disengagement" from conflict with the Palestinians.

But the departure of the highest-ranking minister yet to go over the pullout was too late to prevent approval for the forced evacuations of settlers, due to start after Aug. 15.

The cabinet voted by 17 to five to back the first phase of the initiative -- removal of the settlements of Kfar Darom, Netzarim and Morag, isolated enclaves where resistance is likely to be among the strongest.

Netanyahu said his resignation letter counted as a vote against.

"A unilateral withdrawal without anything in return is not the way," he said. "I cannot be part of this irresponsible move that divides the people and harms Israel's security and will in the future pose a danger for the wholeness of Jerusalem."

Right wing opponents see the plan as a capitulation to a Palestinian uprising, as well as setting a precedent for ceding land captured in the 1967 war -- which also includes the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

The hawkish Netanyahu had long opposed removing all 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and four of 120 in the West Bank despite the fact that it has the support of most Israelis.

MARKETS FALL

Israel's blue chip stock index closed 5.2 percent lower on news of the departure of Netanyahu, who made himself a darling of business for cutting taxes and social benefits as well as other reforms that helped lift Israel out of recession.

Markets nonetheless favor the withdrawal, the first time Israel would remove settlements from land where Palestinians want a state and touted by Washington as a possible step to reviving talks on a "road map" for peace in the Middle East.

There was no immediate comment on Netanyahu's resignation from Sharon's office.

The Yesha settler council commended him "for showing national responsibility and leadership, for deciding not to lend his hand in the uprooting of Jewish communities to encourage terror."

Settlers have watched their political options for defeating the pullout dwindle, while the fatal shooting of four Israeli Arabs by a radical opponent last week came as another blow to the movement -- even though it condemned the attack.

Netanyahu, 55, himself a former prime minister, is widely expected to challenge Sharon's leadership at some stage after the pullout and could benefit from the support of opponents of the Gaza pullout. Sharon is 77.

Palestinians welcome the Gaza withdrawal but suspect that Sharon will use it to tighten Israel's hold on much bigger West Bank settlements. Fewer than 4 percent of the 240,000 settlers will be affected by the plan.

In the West Bank, gunmen shot and wounded an Israeli man and his son in a car near the Jewish settlement of Ateret, medics said. The boy was in critical condition, they said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

In the southern Gaza Strip, Palestinian witnesses said a man had been shot dead by soldiers when he approached a building near a border area that he had abandoned during a military raid last year. The army was checking the report.

Last week's shooting by the Jewish militant has raised fears of further bloodshed, which could complicate the withdrawal and further endanger a shaky six-month-old truce. Sharon told the cabinet there was a continuing risk of similar incidents.